Skip to main content

Agenda item

Minutes:

            The Senior Planning officer provided the Committee with the key details of the outline application.

 

            She provided the Committee with a detailed presentation of the outline application for a mixed-use scheme comprising offices, 367 residential units, restaurants/cafes, a hotel, retail units on the ground floor and cultural and community space.  She explained that the proposal also sought to reconfigure Writer’s Square, to pedestrianise North Street, the creation of new public squares (“Central Square” and “Assembly Square” at the junction of North Street and Rosemary Street) and the creation of new pedestrian links between North Street and Donegall Street.

 

            The Members were advised that the applicant had significantly revised the scheme.  The Senior Planning officer outlined that the proposed 27 storey tower and the large anchor retail store which were in the original scheme were no longer proposed and that the revised scheme instead proposed the replacement of the North Street Arcade with a new arcade with retention and restoration of its external facades on both North Street and Donegall Street.  She added that the level of demolition in the revised proposals had also been reduced. 

 

            She explained that the basement and the multi-storey car parks were no longer proposed and that the only on-site parking which would be provided were 25 disabled spaces and 6 spaces for car club vehicles.  She advised that the reduction in parking would be mitigated through green transport measures including travel plans, the use of car club and the distribution of Travel cards to residents which would be secured through a Section 76 Agreement.  DfI Roads had indicated that they were content, subject to conditions.

 

            In relation to the residential units, it was proposed that 10% of the housing, approximately 37 units, would be affordable housing.  The Senior Planning officer explained that the applicant also proposed to relocate the exiting Choice Housing Facility (SHAC), which was within the site boundary, and to provide an additional 10% social housing within the same relocated facility in close proximity to the site.

 

            The Committee was advised that the currently approved scheme for the site, which had been granted permission in 2012, hereafter known as the extant scheme, was for a larger site than the current proposals.  She highlighted to the Committee that the extant scheme was an important material consideration in the determination of the current application and was given significant weight as it was capable of being implemented.

 

            The Committee was advised that 454 letters of objections had been received in respect of the revised scheme along with 5 letters of support.


 

 

            The Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Items Pack, whereby the Historical Environment Division (HED) had provided its latest response in relation to the alignment of the proposed arcade and the proposal for the Assembly Rooms at the corner of Waring Street and North Street.  The Senior Planning officer advised the Members that, contrary to HED, officers felt that the inclusion of a replacement arcade was a substantial improvement over the extant scheme.

 

            The Council’s Economic Development Unit had provided a summary of core principles and thematic areas which were expected to come forward as part of the Employability and Skills Strategy.  The Senior Planning officer advised the Committee that the Strategy and Plans would be secured as part of the Section 76 Planning Agreement.

 

            She provided the details of six additional objections which had been received since the publication of the Case officer’s report raising issues which were addressed within the report.

 

            The Committee was advised that the applicant had provided information regarding the accuracy of the daylight/sunlight modelling work which had been undertaken by Delva Patman Redler (DPR).  The Members were asked to note the information.

 

            The Urban Design Officer presented a number of detailed slides which demonstrated the urban design aspects of the scheme.  He outlined that design approach, including the retention of a much higher number of facades in the proposals, would keep the historic plot widths of the area.  He provided the Committee with example extracts of the Design Code for the scheme, including the materials used.  The Members were also provided with the details of the permeable routes through the site.

 

            The officers highlighted a number of the changes between the extant scheme and the proposed outline application.

 

            The Senior Planning officer advised the Committee that an analysis of housing trends had shown that accommodation was required for smaller households, or two persons or fewer.

 

            He also summarised the significant community benefits of the revised scheme, including the regeneration of the area, bringing Listed Buildings back into use, restoration of historic buildings, job creation, affordable housing and supporting the vitality and viability of the city centre.

 

            The Committee was advised that, as an objection had been received from the Historic Environment Division (HED), a statutory consultee, if the Committee was to grant approval to the outline application, it would be referred to the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) under the notification process.

 

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. A. Cahoon, Director of Killycrot Estates, Dr. A. Martire, Vice Chair of Save CQ, and Mr. J. Watson, St Anne’s Cathedral, to the meeting, who were representing a group of objectors.

 

            Mr. Cahoon advised that, while he was not against the Tribeca development, he would like to see the removal of Block 1, a five storey building, as it would be just 4 metres from the front elevation of New Cathedral Buildings, and not, as the report stated, from the gable of 60 Donegall Street.  He stated that he believed that it would have a negative impact on the commercial viability of New Cathedral Buildings and for its sole tenant, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.  He proposed that the Planning Committee placed a condition on any planning permission that it would give to require the removal of Block 1.

 

            Dr. Martire advised the Committee that the Save CQ campaign had serious concerns regarding the proposals, including that:

 

·        it was an ill-conceived scheme which would inflate land prices;

·        reducing Writer’s Square from a vibrant public space, which was used for many of the City’s most important festivals to an overshadowed, set-back off Donegall Street was unacceptable;

·        not providing 20% social housing was unacceptable;

·        demolishing over 75% of the built fabric was unacceptable; and

·        given the number of statutory and non-statutory objections, that she hoped the Committee would deny permission for the proposals in its current form.

 

            Mr. Watson explained that he was speaking on behalf of the Belfast Cathedral and that, while they were in favour of regeneration in the area, they had a number of fundamental concerns, particularly regarding the massing of Block 2, whereby the current proposals were, in fact, worse than the extant scheme in terms of its impact on the setting of St. Anne’s Cathedral and in terms of a potential loss of light.  He explained that he felt that the proposal did not meet all of the criteria of Policy BH11.  He added that they opposed the reduction of the public space of Writer’s Square and that it would negatively impact upon the Cathedral.

 

            The Chairperson then welcomed Mr. C. O’Brien, Savills, Mr. M. Levinson, Squire and Partners Architects, and Mr. D. Stelfox, Consarc Design Group, to the meeting, representing the agent/applicant and supporters of the application.

 

            Mr. O’Brien advised the Committee that:

 

·        the application involved one of the largest private sector investments to date for Belfast, totalling £500million, in an area which had been earmarked for regeneration since the 1990s;

·        it was a heritage-led scheme;

·        it would generate around 600 jobs during construction and 1600 Full-Time jobs once operational;

·        the Gross Value Added of £213million per annum, and £23million in rates generation;

·        the proposals contained 367 housing units within the city centre, including 10% affordable and 10% social housing, which would contribute towards the aims in the Belfast Agenda;

·        a range of sustainable and green travel measures were included;

·        it included £17.5million investment in public realm;

·        the scheme would enhance the Conservation Area and was a substantial improvement on the extant consent;

·        after three years of consultation, supporters included Retail NI, the Destination CQ BID and the Belfast Chamber.

 

            Mr. Levinson advised that the design had been driven by the historic buildings within the Conservation area resulting in an eclectic variety of heights which reflected an enhanced the area.  He added that new streets had been created as part of the scheme, in addition to the Arcade, which would bringing together the Cathedral Quarter, Royal Avenue and the University areas.

 

            Mr. Stelfox advised the Committee that the proposals met all the Policy Tests and that HED was now content with the plans for the listed Assembly Rooms and for Braddells.  He advised the Members that a key part of the regeneration included the creation of active frontages in addition to the new public realm.  He added that he felt that the substantial investment gave the area the best chance yet to be rejuvenated and reoccupied. 

 

            In response to a Member’s question regarding the Demolition in a Conservation Area Consents, Mr. Stelfox confirmed that, technically, the whole Assembly Rooms building was listed, including the modern 1950s extension.  He explained that the same applied for the listed Braddells building, which had poor quality shed extensions to the rear.  He advised the Committee that they were technically listed but were required to be removed in order to restore the building properly.

 

            In response to a further Member’s question, Mr O’Brien advised the Committee that NI Water had confirmed that there was adequate capacity for the proposals.

 

            A number of Members raised concerns regarding the reduction in Writer’s Square, particularly given that it was largely used for community festivals, rallies and marches.  Mr. Stelfox advised that the quality of the space in an urban area was important and that the scheme created a more usable space than what existed currently.  Mr. O’Brien added that the creation of Assembly Square and Long Lane would also help to create a different space or routes for people to gather on Culture Night, for example.

 

             A further Member raised concern regarding the suggested overshadowing of St. Anne’s Cathedral.

 

            In response to a further Member’s question regarding evidence of support from the local community, Mr. O’Brien advised the Committee that significant consultation had been undertaken, the last of which had shown that 88% of respondents had responded positive.

 

            After further discussion, the Chairperson advised the Committee that Mr. B. McKervey and Ms. N. Golden, Historic Environment Division (HED), were in attendance to answer any questions from the Committee.

 

            In response to a Member’s question, Ms. Golden advised that HED was content with the proposals for the Braddells building.  She advised that, with regards to the Assembly Rooms, HED would have liked to have seen further information in relation to the condition reports for the listed building, and the connections between new and old elements, and, provided that the former banking hall would remain fully accessible for members of the public, they were largely content that the proposals applied with the Policies.  In relation to paragraph 6.25 of BH10, she explained that, for the proposed realigned arcade, no justification had been provided to justify deviating from the original footprint of the 1930s arcade. She added that HED felt that the proposed extensions on top of the arcade was not set back far enough and were over-dominant.

 

(Councillor Garrett left the meeting at this point)

 

            After further discussion, and in response to a question from a Member, the Planning Manager confirmed to the Members that the extant scheme established the principle of demolition of certain non-listed buildings.  It further established the reduction in the size of Writer’s Square.

 

            The Director of Planning and Building Control advised the Committee that the applications had been subject to long negotiations and discussions not only with the Planning Service but also with the statutory consultees.  He also pointed out that the applicant had conformed to a lot of the proposals which were contained in the forthcoming Local Development Plan for the City.

           

            The Divisional Solicitor reminded the Committee that it was not starting with ‘a blank slate’ and therefore had to have regard to the fact that there was an extant permission which permitted the demolition of both listed and unlisted buildings.  She advised the Committee that it had an acknowledgement from HED that the proposed scheme was an improvement on the extant permission. She added that the volume of letters of either support or objection should not correlate to the weight to be attached to those representations. The issue for Committee was whether the matters raised were material and, if so, it was a matter for Members as to the weight to attach to those issues in exercising their planning judgement.

 

            The Chairperson then put the officer’s recommendation to the Committee, to approve the outline application, subject to the imposing of the conditions as outlined within the case officer’s report, to delegate power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions and to agree a Section 76 Legal Agreement.

 

            On a vote by show of hands, nine Members voted for the proposal and four against and it was accordingly declared carried.

 

Supporting documents:

Read aloud icon Read aloud